Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Meta invests $14.3B in Scale AI to kick-start superintelligence lab

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–400 of 507 posts

Re: Meta invests $14.3B in Scale AI to kick-start superintelligence lab

#391

Post by dongobread »

paxys wrote: post #146
ml-anon wrote: post #85

The only way to understand this is by knowing: Meta already has two (!!) AI labs who are already at existential odds with one-another and both are in the process of failing spectacularly. One (FAIR) is lead by Rob Fergus (who? exactly!) because the previous lead quit. Relatively little gossip on that one other than top AI labs have their pick of outgoing talent. The other (GenAI) is lead by Ahmad Al-Dahle (who? exact…

This is exactly why Zuck feels he needs a Sam Altman type in charge. They have the labs, the researchers, the GPUs, and unlimited cash to burn. Yet it takes more than all that to drive outcomes. Llama 4 is fine but still a distant 6th or 7th in the AI race. Everyone is too busy playing corporate politics. They need an outsider to come shake things up.

The corporate politics at Meta is the result of Zuck's own decisions. Even in big tech, Meta is (along with Amazon) rather famous for its highly political and backstabby culture.

This is because these two companies have extremely performance-review oriented cultures where results need to be proven every quarter or you're grounds for laying off.

Labs known for being innovative all share the same trait of allowing researchers to go YEARS without high impact results. But both Meta and Scale are known for being grind shops.

Re: Meta invests $14.3B in Scale AI to kick-start superintelligence lab

#392

Post by siliconc0w »

Seems like desperation to convince the industry that they're still relevant in AI after the fiasco that was Llama4. Scale doesn't create foundational models, they compile proprietary datasets that everyone has already licensed and trained on - not a lot of reoccurring value. Maybe this slows down competitors a bit but I doubt it.

Re: Meta invests $14.3B in Scale AI to kick-start superintelligence lab

#393

Post by flyinglizard »

unshavedyak wrote: post #329
delusional wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but Meta would be able to kick the board and find another one more willing to accept their proposal as the best for shareholders.

Power struggles like this are weird to me. Is kicking the board likely to succeed at 49%? If so it feels like the control percentage isn't the primary factor in actual control.

At 49% I'm certain they would become the largest shareholder, by far. Then allying with another smaller shareholder to get majority - especially as you are Meta and can repay in various ways - is trivial. This is control, in all forms but name.

Re: Meta invests $14.3B in Scale AI to kick-start superintelligence lab

#394

Post by Lu2025 »

paxys wrote: post #110
krosaen wrote: post #92

Anyone know what scale does these days beyond labeling tools that would make them this interesting to Meta? Data labeling tools seem more of a traditional software application and not much to do with AI models themselves that would be somewhat easily replicated, but guessing my impression is out of date. Also now apparently their CEO is leaving [1], so the idea that they were super impressed with him doesn't seem to…

I doubt Scale is interesting by itself. This is all about Alexandr Wang. Guy is in his mid 20s and has somehow worked his way up in Silicon Valley to the same stature as CEOs of multi trillion dollar companies. Got a front row seat at Trump's inaugration. Advises the DoD. Routinely rubs shoulders with world leaders. I can't say whether there's actual substance or not, by clearly Zuck sees something in him (probably a…

This guy looks like a front. How's behind him?

Re: Meta invests $14.3B in Scale AI to kick-start superintelligence lab

#395

Post by nostromo »

ml-anon wrote: post #85

The only way to understand this is by knowing: Meta already has two (!!) AI labs who are already at existential odds with one-another and both are in the process of failing spectacularly. One (FAIR) is lead by Rob Fergus (who? exactly!) because the previous lead quit. Relatively little gossip on that one other than top AI labs have their pick of outgoing talent. The other (GenAI) is lead by Ahmad Al-Dahle (who? exact…

Meta is struggling here for the same reason Microsoft couldn’t stop the talent bleed to Google back in the day.

Even if you’re giving massive cash and stock comp, OpenAI has a lot more upside potential than Meta.

Re: Meta invests $14.3B in Scale AI to kick-start superintelligence lab

#396

Post by az226 »

nostromo wrote: post #395
ml-anon wrote: post #85

The only way to understand this is by knowing: Meta already has two (!!) AI labs who are already at existential odds with one-another and both are in the process of failing spectacularly. One (FAIR) is lead by Rob Fergus (who? exactly!) because the previous lead quit. Relatively little gossip on that one other than top AI labs have their pick of outgoing talent. The other (GenAI) is lead by Ahmad Al-Dahle (who? exact…

Meta is struggling here for the same reason Microsoft couldn’t stop the talent bleed to Google back in the day. Even if you’re giving massive cash and stock comp, OpenAI has a lot more upside potential than Meta.

Microsoft back in the day and today still doesn’t pay top dollar. So you can’t get top talent with 65th percentile pay.

Re: Meta invests $14.3B in Scale AI to kick-start superintelligence lab

#397

Post by az226 »

Imnimo wrote: post #302

I just don't get why Scale and/or Alexandr Wang are so important to Meta. Like sure, data is good and all, but does Scale really bring something so unique and valuable to the table? What vision or insight does Wang offer that's worth so much?

Puzzling indeed. Just watch an interview with him. Nothing insightful, just trendy buzzword wordvomit.

Re: Meta invests $14.3B in Scale AI to kick-start superintelligence lab

#398

Post by az226 »

nikcub wrote: post #383
Peroni wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

$14.3 Billion seems excessive for it to be a pure aquihire play. There's undoubtedly some IP acquisition (or at least exclusive access to certain IP) involved.

It's about 0.85% of Meta's market cap - less than the 1% they paid for (granted, all of) Instagram. They also paid about 1% of market cap for Oculus ($2b into a ~$220b market cap) Seems about par for Facebook when it comes to company-shifting acquisitions.

Little known secret is they paid $2.7B, not $2B. And Zuck and the FB head of M&A were talking shit about John Carmack’s crazy wife, who was doing his negotiation for him. On WhatsApp no less.

Re: Meta invests $14.3B in Scale AI to kick-start superintelligence lab

#399

Post by richardw »

consumer451 wrote: post #387
moralestapia wrote: post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The metaverse will happen, IMO. The tech is just not there, yet. Even if it turns out to be wasted money, which I doubt, he's still sitting on almost 2 trillion. Not an L on my book.

> The metaverse will happen, IMO. The tech is just not there, yet. This seems possible, and it just sounds so awful to me. Think about the changes to the human condition that arose from the smartphone. People at concerts and other events scrolling phones, parents missing their children growing up while scrolling their phones. Me, "watching" a movie, scrolling my phone. VR/AR makes all that sound like a walk in the pa…

“We went outside this weekend. Terrible. I wasn’t hot anymore, the smog was everywhere. House was tiny. No AI to help with conversations and people were unfriendly. I’m staying plugged in, where we can fly amongst the stars on unicorns. Some say it’s fake but I say life has been fake for a while.”

Re: Meta invests $14.3B in Scale AI to kick-start superintelligence lab

#400

Post by sieabahlpark »

momoschili wrote: post #377
ml-anon wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cool. So what does a chief AI scientist do?

ideally lead AI science, but in reality mostly pontificate on social media. One could say that is fitting for Meta though right?

[dead]
Post reply on HN